Saddam Hussein to be executed on Jan. 27, 2007

**Zeus** · January 1st, 2007 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Hanren

The timing was not good. Kahit na anung sama naman niya, I think he does not deserve to die that way. Kung nakita nyo sana yung nakuha sa cellphone na video, they kept on taunting him before death.

Naawa ako sa kanya lalo na nung g makita ko yung final moments niya sa gallows. Retribution and not forgiveness is the theme.

Ganun talaga justice(Islamic Style?) e. But I admire his bravery

**Zeus** · January 1st, 2007 11:45 AM

Yung mga supplier ng chemical materials para sa chemical warfare ni Saddam like US, UK and Germany di daw na brought up sa trial e, ayon sa CNN, at US ally pa noong war with Iran

**Jun aka Pekto** · January 1st, 2007 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Zeus

Yung mga supplier ng chemical materials para sa chemical warfare ni Saddam like US, UK and Germany di daw na brought up sa trial e, ayon sa CNN, at US ally pa noong war with Iran

Here's a site about it.....
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

**squala** · January 1st, 2007 06:11 PM

The advanced execution was quite inhumane. Even if Saddaam was really a bad man, he should have been treated like a person still. It seems that they just want to kill him and not give him a chance to see 2007 and somehow hope for a new life on the other side.

It's also pathetic that the US only picks on opposing leaders that they can fight. There were no proven WMDs in Iraq and Saddaam was punished, but nuke tests in NoKor done right on their faces yet they don't retaliate. Oh, there's no oil in Pyongyang. Or they wouldn't want to awake a sleeping giant in Beijing.

**Jun aka Pekto** · January 1st, 2007 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by squala

The advanced execution was quite inhumane. Even if Saddaam was really a bad man, he should have been treated like a person still. It seems that they just want to kill him and not give him a chance to see 2007 and somehow hope for a new life on the other side.

It's also pathetic that the US only picks on opposing leaders that they can fight. There were no proven WMDs in Iraq and Saddaam was punished, but nuke tests in NoKor done right on their faces yet they don't retaliate. Oh, there's no oil in Pyongyang. Or they wouldn't want to awake a sleeping giant in Beijing.

Maybe it was because he was turning 70 this year. The new Iraqi government didn't want to take any chances of his age jeopardizing any chance of an execution.

As for North Korea, it's large and well-trained military will pose a problem even if the US came with the blessings of the UN. It's terrain is very rugged. It's a nasty little place to conduct a ground war, especially in winter. Any ground operations will be slow-going and casualties will most likely be horrendous if the Korean War was any indication.

China also complicates matters since it has traditionally been North Korea's ally. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN asked China to deal with North Korea rather than the US. Since the Chinese do have more leverage with Kim Il Jong.

As for WMD's.... Has anyone here actually followed the long and frequent times Iraq had thrown UN inspectors out throughout the 90's and this decade? I did at least until after I retired. Personally, all that time would've been sufficient to destroy evidence. It wouldn't take a big container either to hold the chemicals considering it takes only a slight pin prick's worth to kill a human.

Saddam could've been telling the truth by 2003. But that doesn't mean the WMD weapons never existed. All the preceding events beforehand cast too much doubt on that, especially when you've been following events dating back to 1990. I'm convinced a third country has them or they're buried in the Iraqi countryside. Why? Well, Saddam did bury many of his jet aircraft in the desert and they haven't all been found either.

Also, I don't know why "oil" is such a dirty word. Of course it's all about oil. Without oil, many industrialized countries would wither in the vine. While the US do get some of its oil from the Middle East, I don't think it's the majority of its imports. Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela accounts for the majority. It's easy to blame the US. But who really stands to benefit from the US keeping the oil supply lines open? The US? I doubt it. The US can solve all its oil problems simply by using more of its own. Who do that leave? Sometimes, you have to look where it ain't. China, Japan, and South Korea have been awfully quiet, too quiet. I've also noticed far less anti-US rallies in Korea now than when I was last there in 1996. You'd think there'd be a lot more considering the pervasive anti-US sentiment around.......

**espeago** · January 2nd, 2007 09:28 AM

With full honesty I really think Saddam deserved a prison sentence, killing off a cruel wicked man has only made them look the same, pretty much on his level. If death equals death then this world will never see peace, only continuous bloodbaths and the rule of unjust tyrannies. Saddam has just been made 'history', nothing else.

Infact, I would like to see Bush also serve the same punishment for all his 'crimes against humanity'. What an ignorant world we live in. The outcome of this is not Peace and Unity amongst the tribes or nations of Iraq. The US have not finished what they have started, we are yet to see alot more bloodshed, until then people should continue praying for democracy which may never exist.

**creepy** · January 2nd, 2007 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

Also, I don't know why "oil" is such a dirty word. Of course it's all about oil. Without oil, many industrialized countries would wither in the vine. While the US do get some of its oil from the Middle East, I don't think it's the majority of its imports. Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela accounts for the majority. It's easy to blame the US. But who really stands to benefit from the US keeping the oil supply lines open? The US? I doubt it.

So you're saying that the U.S. that will NOT benefit?!? And the U.S. govt is doing this out of the goodness of its heart?

Oil is not a dirty word. But INVASION (for the benefit of oil) is a dirty word.

Ultimately, I think the U.S. administration will opt to chicken out of Iraq after causing so much mayhem there.

**Jun aka Pekto** · January 2nd, 2007 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by espeago

With full honesty I really think Saddam deserved a prison sentence, killing off a cruel wicked man has only made them look the same, pretty much on his level. If death equals death then this world will never see peace, only continuous bloodbaths and the rule of unjust tyrannies. Saddam has just been made 'history', nothing else.

Infact, I would like to see Bush also serve the same punishment for all his 'crimes against humanity'. What an ignorant world we live in. The outcome of this is not Peace and Unity amongst the tribes or nations of Iraq. The US have not finished what they have started, we are yet to see alot more bloodshed, until then people should continue praying for democracy which may never exist.

It seems the charges leveled against Saddam which lead to his execution is specific to an assasination attempt against him in 1982, not his conduct as a whole while dictator of Iraq. So getting Bush Jr. in the gallows isn't going to happen even if he was sitting in the international jail at The Hague.

It's a dog eat dog world. Many Shiites won't be at peace until the Sunnis are wiped out and vice versa. So, what do you do? Leave em alone and let one group wipe the other out? Personally, I don't know what would make them be at peace.

It's the same with many Muslims in the Philippines, there are those who won't stop until they seceed from the rest of the Philippines. How do you deal with them? Wipe them out?

I too blame the Bushes, but not in the same way you do. In my view, the Coalition should've taken Iraq back in Desert Storm and deposed Saddam right there and then. If Gen Shwarzpkopf was allowed to finish the job in 1991, none of these may be happening. But, Bush Sr. told him to stop at Kuwait's border because he felt deposing Saddam (and freeing the rest of Iraq) might antagonize the Arab contingent of the Coalition. Back then I thought that was BS. I still do today. Leaving Saddam in power was the biggest mistake Bush Sr ever made.

I don't know how long you've been tracking events in the Middle East. For myself, the place had been too much a part of my life for over a decade. Now, someone else is carrying the torch in my place and I'm not frustrated like I once was.

**Jun aka Pekto** · January 2nd, 2007 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by creepy

So you're saying that the U.S. that will NOT benefit?!? And the U.S. govt is doing this out of the goodness of its heart?

Oil is not a dirty word. But INVASION (for the benefit of oil) is a dirty word.

Ultimately, I think the U.S. administration will opt to chicken out of Iraq after causing so much mayhem there.

Of course the US will benefit. Having bases in that part of the world is a big advantage. But, much of these stems from unfinished business dating back to 1990. Leaving Saddam in power has dogged Bush Sr since Desert Storm ended. Even then, we knew the US will have to deal with Saddam again and years later, it did happen.

I doubt the US wants Iraq's oil for themselves. First of all, the Iraqis as a whole wouldn't stand for it. Second, the US has plenty of oil. If they wanted to solve the US gas shortage, they can solve it by increasing output. Judging by how low prices of gas has gone down (current prices in AZ are the lowest I've seen in a year and a half) it isn't necessary.

No matter which administration is in power, the ultimate goal is to get US ground troops out of Iraq while perhaps, retaining the bases. Another mistake is staying too long and trying to make sure democracy takes root. Personally, I would've withdrawn all US troops after Saddam's capture and let the Shiites and Kurds take over Iraq as they pleased, even if they would've wreaked their vengeance on the Sunnis. If the Shiites wanted a theocratic state instead of a democracy, then so be it. Some countries are just not meant to have a democratic form of government.